Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[laughing dog]

So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?

Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.

Would you bet your life on that?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

That isn't what happened.

Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

 

[J842P]

So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?

Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.

Would you bet your life on that?

If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.

 

[J842P]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

That isn't what happened.

Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.

 

[J842P]

So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes. It is a subsection of the provocation part of the statute.

 

[laughing dog]

So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?

Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.

Would you bet your life on that?

If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.

That is not what I asked.

 

[J842P]

So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
And what about Mom-the-accessory?

Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.

Would you bet your life on that?

If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.

That is not what I asked.

Then sorry, LD, I don't know what you are asking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

That isn't what happened.

Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.

Much like the guy who was reacting to a gun pointed at him was acting in a clear-cut case of self-defense?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I allege it was fake because he was crying when his attorney was questioning him.

Psychology Without Experience Is Babbling Quackery

I cried twice after deadly combat in Vietnam. Neither time had anything to do with that, so it was long-delayed and suppressed. It was triggered by unrelated stress fractures.

 

[J842P]

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

That isn't what happened.

Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.

Much like the guy who was reacting to a gun pointed at him was acting in a clear-cut case of self-defense?

What guy? And how is it relevant?

 

[J842P]

So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?

Yes, brandishing a weapon would be an example. I don't think that was established in this case. It was alleged by the prosecution based on pretty bad video evidence.

Being out during a curfew? No, definitely.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?

Yes, brandishing a weapon would be an example. I don't think that was established in this case. It was alleged by the prosecution based on pretty bad video evidence.

Whether or not you think it was established, it's an illegal thing that impacts a self-defense claim in nuanced ways.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

That isn't what happened.

Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.

Rittenhouse was pointing his AR15 at people before anyone accosted him. That rightly pisses people off. That was provocation which, as the statute that was posted, disqualifies KR from the right to claim self-defense.

 

[KeepTalking]

I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.

I have a quote prediction from a future conservative post in a thread regarding the next mass shooting at a protest/rally/riot/whatever:

"Why are you guys bringing up Rittenhouse?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Young Jerks, I mean The Young Turks, have walked back their prior position on KR now that they've seen what came out during the trial. They are no longer convinced of his guilt and think it might be possible that maybe he acted in self defense.

I think it's pretty clear he acted in "self defense". The question is whether his actions are legal self defense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Watching the defense attorney's final statement, he's asking the jurors to not believe the witnesses, whether they be police officers, the FBI transcipt of their KR interview, nor their own eyes. He doesn't seem to be doing a great job of breaking down the prosecutor's arguments. I guess when all you've got are fantacies, that's what you go with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who said he was stealing a car? Who said he was kidnapping.....his own children?

He didn't own the car, he didn't have permission to drive it, he was taking the kids contrary to a custody agreement. Thus grand theft auto and kidnapping.

I’ve never claimed that Blake us a good guy. As far as ‘non-custodial ‘abduction’ of his children, that is not something I’ve heard before.

Nonetheless, the police grossly and needlessly endangered 3 young children.

Letting him go could have been a danger to them, also. And the information was brought up at the time, it shouldn't be a surprise.